Officials representing the organizers vying to oust Sen. John Morse[1] from office on Thursday called the legal contest brought by backers of the Democratic Senate president a “certification day publicity stunt” that attempts to undermine the will of Morse’s constituents.

Shortly after a news release was dispersed by the secretary of state’s office deeming the recall sufficient, attorneys for Morse on Tuesday issued a legal contest that aims to nullify all of those signatures because they say petitioners failed to use certain language from the state Constitution in their effort.

A hearing on the matter is scheduled for June 27 at the secretary of state’s office.

“The petition was approved before it was circulated and that was 70 days ago. When the secretary of state approved it for circulation, copies were then sent to the organizers and to Senator Morse and there was ample time for review. If a legal challenge to that were necessary, it would have been then,” said Jennifer Kerns[4], a spokeswoman for the Basic Freedom Defense Fund[5], which oversees the El Paso Freedom Defense Committee[6] who is leading the recall effort.

Mark Grueskin[7], an election lawyer who is representing a Morse constituent who filed the legal challenge, stressed Tuesday the organizers failed to use proper language as defined by the Colorado Constitution requiring petitions include information on a successor to the recalled lawmaker.

He cited Article 21, Section 1 of the Constitution that says petitions “expressly include a demand for the election of a successor to the recalled official,” and argued that all the signatures should be nullified because the “constitution is clear, just as the courts are clear: No recall petition is valid without this specific language.”

The recall petition’s plain language — which is stoked by Morse’s support of stricter Colorado gun laws — doesn’t appear to contain information relating to a successor being picked.

But Richard Westfall, legal counsel to the Colorado GOP party who signed on Thursday to represent the Freedom Defense Fund, said that’s a more “generic” section of the Constitution and that more focus should be placed on Section 2.

In Section 2 — which deals with recall petition forms — there’s no mention of language as it pertains to a successor, notes Westfall.

“It’s a generic concept calling for the election of a successor. They’re reaching as they go into the language of the Constitution … it’s Section 2 that talks about exactly what needs to go into the form,” Westfall said.

Morse could not be reached Thursday to answer questions about why at the time he received a copy of the petition language he did not raise concerns.

Westfall and Kerns said the Morse team wants to cause a “log jam” with possible court preceding and tie up the recall effort.

[8] less than 350 votes in a district that’s divided almost evenly among Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters: http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_23425186/sen-john-morse-recall-questions-swirl-signature-verification

[9] focus of a recall: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23429963/sen-angela-giron-certain-pueblo-constituents-will-back